In the 90s, we had M.C. Hammer, Spice Girls, HANSON, Full House, "I tried Marijuana once, I did not inhale," "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," "I did have an inappropriate relationship with that woman," Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman...
Need I progress?
You could for a good long while, and it wouldn't matter. Dubya in the White House alone renders the '90s > '00s. Unfortunately.
Oh, and ppl actually sorta like Hammer again. I think its sympathy from him going broke.
While the previous quarter saw record Mac sales, the jury is out on the upcoming quarters with a softening retail market.
And while the argument can be made that since market share is up, Apple must be doing something right, one might argue what numbers they could have if they had a reasonably price tower.
Agreed. Mac sales are indeed up, but what would they be if Apple filled some of the holes in its line-up and priced a tad more aggressively in some key areas? Hmm...
All I know is, while Apple is doing well in the US, worldwide marketshare is still only around 3 percent. With Vista doing lackluster and so many now seeing the Mac as a viable choice, plus the ability to run Windows on your Mac, you have to think that about the only things holding ppl back from switching are price and the holes in Apple's lineup.
But, of course, the second you point that out, you get accused of wanting Apple to make sub-$500 eMachines clones, or you get some platitude about how "Apple can't be all things to all people." ... even though a minitower or 15" Macbook would be far less niche than the G4 Cube or (quite likely) the MB Air.
Really guys, it isn't either-or, there is a middle ground, regarding pricing and line-up.... and I think Apple would be wise to hit it. The switcher rates are good, but could be so much more impressive still...
The high-end MacMini's profit margins have grown to 60% (or possibly more) on the hardware alone. This is based on a survey I performed on the RETAIL prices of the exact (or sometimes better) hardware on newegg.com, so they are possibly making more than 60% on their hardware alone.
You can't count just the components of a computer to deduce Apple's profits... you have to account for assembly, shipping and everything else that goes into making a computer... not just on what's inside. Apple's profit margins are not in the 60% range at all....
You can't count just the components of a computer to deduce Apple's profits... you have to account for assembly, shipping and everything else that goes into making a computer... not just on what's inside. Apple's profit margins are not in the 60% range at all....
Yes, yes, we know, we covered that ages ago.
The fact remains that the "high"-end mini is still so outdated technology-wise that its profits are insane. That computer either needs an upgrade or a $200 price-cut. Period.
I think a lot of other people feel the same way, and that's essentially why Apple *can* buck the trend of declining prices.
Well, there's a broader way to look at this.
Apple has a resource, which we'll call consumer 'goodwill', 'product interest', what have you. This resource has been generated by the actual quality of the Mac (user experience, security, design, all the little touches) and also by reputation (the Halo effect of the iPod and iPhone, Vista doing lackluster in comparison).
Its this resource which lets Apple charge more for Macs than PC makers can get for PCs.
Now, Apple can do one of three things with this resource:
1) Charge as much more as it possibly can for its computers, period, in order to maximize margins/profits/stock price
2) Charge as small a premium as possible for its computers, in order to maximize marketshare (perhaps creating a "snowball" effect)
I think many of the complaints regarding Apple's approach is that its been seen to be far too much "approach #1", too much emphasis on profits and the stock price at the expense of marketshare, when a lot of ppl would prefer to see #2 or #3. I myself am a #3 guy.
Quote:
Just don't know how competing aggressively in the sub-$500 space would help Apple.
I quite agree, Apple should not compete in the sub-$500 space, since there is little margin to be made there, and it does not help Apple's reputation either (though to be fair to Clive, sub-$500 isn't really what he's advocating... even a $399 Mac Mini is more of a $600+ computer, since of course the price doesn't include display, keyboard, or mouse).
What would be very nice, though, is if Apple offered more choices and more aggressive pricing in the $900-$1500 space. They have no sub-$1000 notebook, no minitower (sorry, but $2800 for the MacPro is cuckoo for cocoa puffs), no 15" notebook for less than $2000... heck, they don't even have a sub-$1000 iMac anymore.
I don't think there's much doubt that Apple could grab even more marketshare than it has if it addressed some of the above complaints. The question is, how much margin are they willing to sacrifice in the short-term in order to grab that additional marketshare?
But, of course, if you even bring up the question, you get accused of advocating that Apple "give away" their computers, or that they should bottom-feed in the sub-$500 space.
Again, it's not either-or, there is a middle ground, and I don't see Apple currently occupying it... they seem to be too monomaniacally focused on margins uber alles.
Comments
In the 90s, we had M.C. Hammer, Spice Girls, HANSON, Full House, "I tried Marijuana once, I did not inhale," "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," "I did have an inappropriate relationship with that woman," Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman...
Need I progress?
You could for a good long while, and it wouldn't matter. Dubya in the White House alone renders the '90s > '00s. Unfortunately.
Oh, and ppl actually sorta like Hammer again. I think its sympathy from him going broke.
.
While the previous quarter saw record Mac sales, the jury is out on the upcoming quarters with a softening retail market.
And while the argument can be made that since market share is up, Apple must be doing something right, one might argue what numbers they could have if they had a reasonably price tower.
Agreed. Mac sales are indeed up, but what would they be if Apple filled some of the holes in its line-up and priced a tad more aggressively in some key areas? Hmm...
All I know is, while Apple is doing well in the US, worldwide marketshare is still only around 3 percent. With Vista doing lackluster and so many now seeing the Mac as a viable choice, plus the ability to run Windows on your Mac, you have to think that about the only things holding ppl back from switching are price and the holes in Apple's lineup.
But, of course, the second you point that out, you get accused of wanting Apple to make sub-$500 eMachines clones, or you get some platitude about how "Apple can't be all things to all people."
Really guys, it isn't either-or, there is a middle ground, regarding pricing and line-up.... and I think Apple would be wise to hit it. The switcher rates are good, but could be so much more impressive still...
.
The high-end MacMini's profit margins have grown to 60% (or possibly more) on the hardware alone. This is based on a survey I performed on the RETAIL prices of the exact (or sometimes better) hardware on newegg.com, so they are possibly making more than 60% on their hardware alone.
You can't count just the components of a computer to deduce Apple's profits... you have to account for assembly, shipping and everything else that goes into making a computer... not just on what's inside. Apple's profit margins are not in the 60% range at all....
You can't count just the components of a computer to deduce Apple's profits... you have to account for assembly, shipping and everything else that goes into making a computer... not just on what's inside. Apple's profit margins are not in the 60% range at all....
Yes, yes, we know, we covered that ages ago.
The fact remains that the "high"-end mini is still so outdated technology-wise that its profits are insane. That computer either needs an upgrade or a $200 price-cut. Period.
-Clive
I think a lot of other people feel the same way, and that's essentially why Apple *can* buck the trend of declining prices.
Well, there's a broader way to look at this.
Apple has a resource, which we'll call consumer 'goodwill', 'product interest', what have you. This resource has been generated by the actual quality of the Mac (user experience, security, design, all the little touches) and also by reputation (the Halo effect of the iPod and iPhone, Vista doing lackluster in comparison).
Its this resource which lets Apple charge more for Macs than PC makers can get for PCs.
Now, Apple can do one of three things with this resource:
1) Charge as much more as it possibly can for its computers, period, in order to maximize margins/profits/stock price
2) Charge as small a premium as possible for its computers, in order to maximize marketshare (perhaps creating a "snowball" effect)
3) Do some sort of hybrid of approaches #1 and #2
I think many of the complaints regarding Apple's approach is that its been seen to be far too much "approach #1", too much emphasis on profits and the stock price at the expense of marketshare, when a lot of ppl would prefer to see #2 or #3. I myself am a #3 guy.
Just don't know how competing aggressively in the sub-$500 space would help Apple.
I quite agree, Apple should not compete in the sub-$500 space, since there is little margin to be made there, and it does not help Apple's reputation either (though to be fair to Clive, sub-$500 isn't really what he's advocating... even a $399 Mac Mini is more of a $600+ computer, since of course the price doesn't include display, keyboard, or mouse).
What would be very nice, though, is if Apple offered more choices and more aggressive pricing in the $900-$1500 space. They have no sub-$1000 notebook, no minitower (sorry, but $2800 for the MacPro is cuckoo for cocoa puffs), no 15" notebook for less than $2000... heck, they don't even have a sub-$1000 iMac anymore.
I don't think there's much doubt that Apple could grab even more marketshare than it has if it addressed some of the above complaints. The question is, how much margin are they willing to sacrifice in the short-term in order to grab that additional marketshare?
But, of course, if you even bring up the question, you get accused of advocating that Apple "give away" their computers, or that they should bottom-feed in the sub-$500 space.
Again, it's not either-or, there is a middle ground, and I don't see Apple currently occupying it... they seem to be too monomaniacally focused on margins uber alles.
.